tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post6538856435679173639..comments2023-12-28T21:22:10.935-07:00Comments on Jill Outside: FootprintsJill Homerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02983065990450931943noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-38831023958008567592011-02-08T22:13:59.055-07:002011-02-08T22:13:59.055-07:00Very interesting topic, one that I've been bat...Very interesting topic, one that I've been battling in my mind for a number of years.<br /><br />motoscotchmark scotchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834584120583645550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-69601280014054432682011-02-08T16:13:52.521-07:002011-02-08T16:13:52.521-07:00Nothing really to add, I think it's all been s...Nothing really to add, I think it's all been said above, but still wanted to thank-you for a very thought provoking article.MtUnpavedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08384740213197733697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-55002469688634126702011-02-05T00:40:17.520-07:002011-02-05T00:40:17.520-07:00An impact-free energy source? Where would that lea...An impact-free energy source? Where would that lead us? We would only burn thru the next resource, and then the next.<br /><br />Now energy is a limiting factor. With an impact-free energy source we can haul logs and gravel anywhere, extract any mineral anywhere. Move more consumer goods. Build more factories. <br /><br />Ultimately we would find ourselves at some resource limit. There always is a limit. And I think our human nature pushes us to the brink. Whether we are wise enough to pull back in time remains to be seen.Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452842332549541201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-60308393144061181422011-02-03T09:42:08.803-07:002011-02-03T09:42:08.803-07:00I read this post last week. And can't get the ...I read this post last week. And can't get the it and the subject out of my mind. This subject is so complex and brings up so many conflicting feelings. Ultimately it's this: How to be content, be at peace, with this hovering over us? <br /><br />A narrative like Vaughn Lovejoy's helps for sure. But, perhaps, it's too simple...and too easy...which is the allure of it and narratives in general. But most of us need something simple because the complexity can easily overwhelm us and our peace. <br /><br />It's tough. On one hand, come up with a simple answer and be at peace. On the other hand, stay open, refuse to get pulled in by a simple narrative, and hopefully don't get pulled in too deep.<br /><br />We all need to find our own balance here. But it seems that most of us too readily accept and cling to the easiest answer so we don't have to think about it. I don't know...maybe that's OK...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-20313202556380816402011-01-30T22:01:37.553-07:002011-01-30T22:01:37.553-07:00Beat--
Thanks for the clarification. I agree. It ...Beat--<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. I agree. It isn't at all productive to look at one aspect of our lives when it's the entire package that matters. Decide what's important, enjoy those things, and one can probably way more than "make up" for it in other ways.<br /><br />I assume you see one of many ways modern US residents take way more than their share of resources in a way that might not give them proportionate joy: The size of our houses! (Not to mention how much debt they give us.)<br /><br />Most Europeans I meet are appalled....<br /><br />Tom<br />FairbanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-80183855673679402522011-01-30T12:08:09.719-07:002011-01-30T12:08:09.719-07:00Tom,
you're absolutely right, and I was not b...Tom,<br /><br />you're absolutely right, and I was not being clear. The sentence you quoted was referring to the climate change issue - it's global, and needs global solutions, which basically only can be a political solution. As such, you may have better impact by being moderate and convincing your ten neighbors that global warming does exist in the first place than by riding your bike to work (although I'm not saying you should't do that). As I mentioned earlier idealists can definitely have huge political thus actual impact, such as the green party in Germany had which made a lot of environmental issues part of the political mainstream - but even all that did not change that we are a growing consumption based world - to change this would mean to abandon capitalism altogether.<br /><br />But in terms of local conservation I totally agree - and my argument was exactly that the (trail) ultrarunning community has a vested interest in protecting parks and wildlife, and the popularization of ultrarunning surely brings about a lot of engaged people who might otherwise be absent. That's why I think that the carbon cost of ultrarunning itself is by far outweighed by the potential for a highly engaged lobby of people who want to enjoy unspoiled nature. Because as a community I definitely do think we can have great positive impact.<br /><br />Note all of this was in response to Dakota's original issue about the cost of ultrarunning. My argument relies on the fact that ultrarunners are a small community and always will be, which I think is clear given the numbers of athletes of any kind worldwide. If we made up a much larger number, the math would shift of course. Then again if everyone loved ultrarunning (of the trail kind) I am certain our parks would be very well protected ...<br /><br />Cheers, BeatBeatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-30316454033578210772011-01-29T19:29:57.152-07:002011-01-29T19:29:57.152-07:00Jill, great post! Beat you made some good points...Jill, great post! Beat you made some good points too. I completely agree with you both.<br /><br />Anon 2:47 I’ve been reading Jill’s post’s for a while if anyone is open to learning and changing it is her. I don’t see her idea as “giving up” it is simply as stance of being at peace. <br /><br />We should all do our best to help with conservatism, but don’t stop living. It would be a shame to not enjoy nature and the beauty of the world. As Beat said the impact of enjoying is world is so negligible. In fact I find that the people who enjoy our world are often the ones who keep it the cleanest; they have something to care about.Bonniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14750264894358084622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-59287107350559635062011-01-29T16:09:45.309-07:002011-01-29T16:09:45.309-07:00"The way I see it, the true benefit of enviro..."The way I see it, the true benefit of environmentalists and do-gooders is not that they actually do good, because that IS completely negligible...."<br /><br />Negligible? Without dedicated environmentalists in the early 1900s Yosemite, Yellowstone and the other big parks would have been commercially developed.<br /><br />Without them more of the Grand Canyon would be under water.<br /><br />Without them the Trans-Alaska pipeline would have been built on the cheap and almost certainly would have had major spills. (And not have survived the 2002 7.9 earthquake without a spill.)<br /><br />I agree that the day-to-day "do-gooding" has its most effect in subtle ways, but big battles can have big positive results.<br /><br />Tom<br />FairbanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-86626035310534476342011-01-28T13:01:02.721-07:002011-01-28T13:01:02.721-07:00Let me rephrase some of my arguments:
- The origi...Let me rephrase some of my arguments:<br /><br />- The original spark for this discussion,was the question if "what is the environmental cost of ultrarunning". The argument here is: ultrarunners are a small community, always will be, as evidenced by the numbers in similar sports. If we do or not do something has absolutely minimal impact in terms of measurable effect on the environment. However: it is a lobby, that can lead to preservation, prevention of irrepairable destruction of nature, wildlife etc. In that sense I believe the good by far outweighs the bad. It's a very specific argument.<br /><br />- So how do we influence global warming in general? Note as Jill said, by no means am we are blaming emerging poor countries or using them as an excuse. But in a pragmatic sense, you realize that air travel amounts for 3% of worldwide CO2 emissions, and 50% of air travel is business related. I don't know cargo numbers. From a moral point of view, you are of course correct - everyone should do their best, and I am certainly thinking about ways to make up for my sins, so to speak. But there's really only one way you as an individual can effectively influence CO2 emissions - go VOTE. Because even if 50% of all americans voluntarily decrease their emissions by 50% - (a very difficult to achieve goal for most without significant $$$ investment), the effect is - unfortunately - too small. And of course one has to be careful with that moral argument as well. If you get cancer, or a relative - would you forgo treatment? Or would you take advantage of all that our wasteful civilization has created to save yourself/your loved ones. I think there are only extremely few people who can live up to such a level of consistency (not to say you're not one of them, but they're rare). <br />Anyhow - from a pragmatic point of view, the only way I see things happening is by technological solution at this point. And the only way to do that is to vote for the right people. You can abstain all you want - it's not at all averting the global catastrophe to come. I think the world has gone far past idealism. Focus your energy on the solutions that WILL have an impact. Because you can miss your chance as an idealist just as much as you can as an ignorant person. <br />Oh, and let's get some trains built, no?Beatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-21475810708745298582011-01-28T11:25:20.151-07:002011-01-28T11:25:20.151-07:00Sara: Exactly. Thanks for putting it so succinctly...Sara: Exactly. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. <br /><br />Anon 10:11: I think you're mistaken in your notion that we need to be assigning blame. We're ALL to blame, and so are our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers who developed this unsustainable system that we're all dependent on. The only argument I make is that our system IS unsustainable over the long-term. Even if we were able to evenly allocate the world's resources we're currently using so all 6.5 billion of us have the exact same share, I still believe it's too much to maintain the status quo indefinitely, even if we somehow level off population growth to zero so we maintain a 6.5 billion world population rather than the predicted rises to 10 billion and more in the next 50 to 75 years. I do not have the answers on what it will take to make our system truly sustainable, although of course every effort to limit impact helps a little bit.Jill Homerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02983065990450931943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-43888830914001652942011-01-28T11:02:10.805-07:002011-01-28T11:02:10.805-07:00I'm anon 10:11. Just call me "Ten."...I'm anon 10:11. Just call me "Ten." ;)<br /><br />I'll bet Jill herself sees the shortcoming in this sentence:<br /><br />"But life is such a unique and fleeting gift that I feel strongly each one of us should dedicate ourselves to 'living,' in whatever way you feel you must live."<br /><br />OK, so if I feel I need to ride my ATV up and down Jill's running trails and through wilderness areas, I should follow my bliss?<br /><br />Unfortunately, global warming doesn't listen to Deepak Chopra tapes. Person A emits tons of emissions from jet fuel, and Person B in Bangladesh can't follow her bliss because her farm just got drowned in saltwater. Person A gets to run an ultra or gamble in Vegas or whatever; person B gets to, well, die. <br /><br />Population growth is declining. Affluent people everywhere are going to find it more difficult to point their fingers at the more numerous poor when the poor use less resources per capita.<br /><br />It's illogical to say "but I as an individual ultrarunner don't use many resources" but then to say "but let's only consider the poor's use of resources en masse." <br /><br /><br />Population has always been secondary to total consumption. I'd note that China and India's nearly exponential rise in consumption has occurred even as population growth rates have been in decline in those countries.<br /><br />Here's a question: how would people feel if everyone in the world were assigned the same resource budget to spend?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-9057704584919044442011-01-28T07:49:52.366-07:002011-01-28T07:49:52.366-07:00Excellent post, Jill. I totally agree with you. Th...Excellent post, Jill. I totally agree with you. The 'why even bother' question is so important I think. In the face of overwhelming inertia going the other way, we have limited power. I had to find my answer to that quesion, which for me is: we only have one life, and one vote in how to live it. On one hand it is Nothing, but on the other hand it is Everything. It's all we get, and if we can't even live our own life in line with our values, then we've given up 100% of that Everything. There is a lot of potential power in how we live our lives. Our heros are the ones who turn their own little Everything into an enormous amount of impact.Sara Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13015835021322201315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-68949306250699504382011-01-27T15:47:43.770-07:002011-01-27T15:47:43.770-07:00Oh, and this quote, also good:
"Art is not a...Oh, and this quote, also good:<br /><br />"Art is not a call to passive contemplation (a trip to the museum) but to the activity of human creation. It is this that should replace Adam Smith’s famous “division of labor,” the work that promises only tedium and despair and passivity in the face of destruction. Environmentalism should be about a return to the aesthetic, and I don’t mean the beauties of a mountain vista. I mean a resistance to the Barbaric Heart through a daily insistence on the Beautiful within individual lives, within communities, and in our relation to the natural world."<br /><br />This relates quite a bit to the point I was trying to communicate. Definitely food for thought. I'm going to have to read this guy's book.Jill Homerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02983065990450931943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-50043803785800059362011-01-27T15:31:46.359-07:002011-01-27T15:31:46.359-07:00Anon 3:01: I've never read Curtis White but ju...Anon 3:01: I've never read Curtis White but just did a quick Google search and found this interesting paragraph written by him:<br /><br />"We are that strange and wonderful animal that has the metaphysical comfort of knowing that she is part of the tragic chorus of natural beings. We are members of that faith that knows that life is indestructibly powerful and pleasurable. And the mark that we will leave upon the world will not be the mark of brute force clothed in the false virtues of the barbarian but the mark of the ultimate realist, he who makes his own world, demanding the impossible and calling it Beautiful."Jill Homerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02983065990450931943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-51246619841320468182011-01-27T15:01:14.743-07:002011-01-27T15:01:14.743-07:00Banking on fusion/progress is fool's gold dont...Banking on fusion/progress is fool's gold dontchaknow...see the essay "The Barbaric Heart" by Curtis White<br /><br />(Also check out "The Idols of Environemntalism" by the same author.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-8024143028828482402011-01-27T14:47:29.283-07:002011-01-27T14:47:29.283-07:00I agree with much of what you said Jill, and I don...I agree with much of what you said Jill, and I don't mean to nit-pick your post (I really like your honesty), but a couple of things:<br /><br />For one, it seems so final in a mind-made-up-I've-got-it-figured-out-sorta-way. The problem with that mindset is that you won't be open to new ideas and so you won't change as readily as you may be ready to. Ya know, you may not feel this way at all in 5 or 10 years.<br /><br />Also, for someone who seemingly never gives up and has incredible endurance, your giving up here.<br /><br />Finally, it really borders on the defensive at time. If your secure with your stance, then there is no reason to be defensive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-59959194892209479872011-01-27T12:12:47.406-07:002011-01-27T12:12:47.406-07:00That's another issue I've been thinking ab...That's another issue I've been thinking about recently. I've lived a relatively low-impact lifestyle compared to many Americans. I do recycle, I buy a lot of my things used and sell it or give it away when I'm done, I don't own a lot of excess stuff, I've owned the same 35-40mpg car for 11 years, I bike commute, I don't have any children, and I lead a healthy lifestyle that limits consumption of food and medical resources. And yet I'm going to be judged by how many plane trips I take or paper cups I use during races. So much about the green movement is so political that it begins to lose all basis in reality. Beat and I are just urging people to look at environmentalism from a practical standpoint.Jill Homerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02983065990450931943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-89157740222227958822011-01-27T11:55:57.114-07:002011-01-27T11:55:57.114-07:00"you cannot deny people their consumption&quo..."you cannot deny people their consumption" Absolutely right, so we might as well enjoy this historical bubble of First World comfort, adventure and opportunity for enjoyment of life through consumption. For even if we live ascetic lives of self-denial, there are plenty of the 6 billion people currently here who aren't going to deny themselves.<br /><br />Timely post as yesterday I was thinking something about the carbon footprint of this new relationship. <br /><br />Nature will deny people their consumption eventually; I hope it happens after my kid is dead and gone, but I'm not absolutely confident on that point.JAT in Seattlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-91793686125351092752011-01-27T11:28:12.562-07:002011-01-27T11:28:12.562-07:00The issue is not that I rationalize flying ... its...The issue is not that I rationalize flying ... its in response to the statement that flying for ultras is a negative impact. That is clearly irrelevant if you agree that ultras will never account for more than a fraction of a percent of reason to travel. Flying is a problem but you wont make a dent. More and more people can afford to ... <br /><br />As for farmers ... I don't get how this relates to what I said. The issue is a huge emerging world that can afford to burn more energy. Soon India and China will use much more energy than the US ... if they don't already. <br /><br />But I am absolutely not fatalist. You cannot deny people their consumption ... so you need to make it sustainable, and I think that will happen. Moderation is all good but it just doesn't work on a large scale. I believe problems can be solved. Until then I want engaged people protect parks and nature from being destroyed in various ways ... and since people are mist lkely to be engaged fir what matters to them direcly so i am all for going to place we love - hikers runners bikers - the more tge better.Beatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-7743648880443429542011-01-27T11:26:54.157-07:002011-01-27T11:26:54.157-07:00The world stands a chance when those that have a l...The world stands a chance when those that have a lot, decide to make do with less, thereby allowing those with less, the chance to live a bit more comfortably by (hopefully) having a bit more.<br /><br />Until that is realized there is absolutely no chance of 'sustainability'.<br /><br />Very nice post by the way, and quite nice to see very good responses where people seem to be staying calm and keeping their wits about them. Refreshing.Kid Riemerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07537691052881191365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-58464047860130662902011-01-27T11:01:34.542-07:002011-01-27T11:01:34.542-07:00Anon 10:11: I completely agree with you on all poi...Anon 10:11: I completely agree with you on all points. My resource use is not at all comparable with a third-world farmer. As a resident of the United States, even if I recycle everything I can and buy mostly local organic food and ride my bicycle instead of drive and avoid traveling to limit my fossil fuel consumption, I’m still probably burning up more resources and emitting more carbon dioxide than that third-world farmer, just by nature of the infrastructure around me (my heated office, well-lit grocery store, maintained roads, the list goes on.) But here’s the point I was trying to make is those resources are being used. That carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere. There are six billion of us vying for these resources, and I think it’s naive to believe that the majority of us, myself and the third-world farmer alike, aren’t using more than what’s sustainable to maintain future generations of 10 billion or 15 billion people. So something is eventually going to have to give — either a massive population decline, or a drastic change in our resource consumption through technological advancements. It’s obvious no one is going to go back to gathering nuts and berries, and even if we all decided to live in the most primitive ways, there aren’t enough nuts and berries in the world to sustain 6 billion of us. We need our industrial infrastructure to survive. <br /><br />I think as individuals the best we can do right now is work to make our own small piece of the world a better place. Be kind to neighbors, preserve open space and wilderness, support our communities and limit resource use as much as we can. There’s still a beautiful here and now we can protect and preserve. But as for the long-term future, you’re right, I’m not optimistic. Fatalism and realism aren’t the same thing. But life is such a unique and fleeting gift that I feel strongly each one of us should dedicate ourselves to “living,” in whatever way you feel you must live.Jill Homerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02983065990450931943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-84146885580663071072011-01-27T10:11:57.103-07:002011-01-27T10:11:57.103-07:00Fatalism is a rationalization, a coping mechanism,...Fatalism is a rationalization, a coping mechanism, but it isn't reason. False equivalencies aren't reason either. <br /><br />I think rationalizations can show an active conscience though, if one in denial.<br /><br />Beat wrote: "Not use transportation? Fuel? Should we deny most of the world progress? Who decides that?" <br /><br />Beat is not, I believe, a poor third world person trying to heat up some tortillas on a gas stove. He's not riding a crowded rickety bus five hours just to sell a goat. He's flying to run races.<br /><br />Flying to Hawaii, California, Alaska, and Montana to run in ultras is hardly "progress" in the sense of feeding the world or whatever, or hardly an equivalent activity to people trying to scratch out a living. Nor are the natural resources expended even remotely comparable in scale. <br /><br />Flying/ultras are a recreational diversion for people with money enough to fly and time and excess calories enough to train. Beat, you're a great guy, and a great runner. But I rather doubt that you're a third world farmer, nor is your (or my) resource use remotely on the same scale of someone in the third world. <br /><br />Nor does it necessarily follow that flying to Hawaii somehow allows some poor guy to cultivate his field. <br /><br />"Who gets to decide how resources are allocated?" <br /><br />People with money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-67519600387645006502011-01-26T13:16:05.556-07:002011-01-26T13:16:05.556-07:00Oh...and HEY! Beat has a Blur? Congrats! It's ...Oh...and HEY! Beat has a Blur? Congrats! It's an AWESOME bike! (I've had a mine for about 5 years now). Up until about a year ago I was up in Sunnyvale for work a few times a year, 30 or more days at a time. I'd always bring my Mt bike...it's amazing how much public land is so very close to SO many peole! <br /><br />My fav mt biking trails (so far) are the Purisima Creek Redwoods. Less than 30 minutes drive from the Mt. View/Sunnyvale area (in light traffic times I mean). I park in the village of Woodside and road-ride up the Kings Mt Rd where it intersects the Skyline Rd (about a 4 mile 1800' climb up a SWEET curvy road thru the redwoods!) There you turn right and after about a quarter mile on your left is the first parking area/trailhead. Take that downhill...it's a BLAST! 1800' down, then you can come up the 'northern' side, which is nearly all singletrack. Just below the top of that (which also has another larger parking lot for the trailhead) there is a connector trial that runs off to the right (south?) and turns into a 'middle' of the park downhill trail...I call this section "SMILE"! By the time you get to the bottom your smile has to be surgically removed. <br /><br />You could ride or run all these trails...it would be awesome for both. Give it a shot sometime. You'd have to do laps/variations to get any appreciable mileage...but it's beautiful and lightly used, and close by. And then the added bonus (if you ride) is when you make your final trail-climb back up to Skyline Rd, you get the swoopy-fun downhill of Kings Mt Rd. I love the sound of my knobbys 'singing' on the pavement!MattChttp://inane-asylum.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-20978454294309825512011-01-26T12:45:29.265-07:002011-01-26T12:45:29.265-07:00I've always been amazed at the environmentalis...I've always been amazed at the environmentalists who want to keep people out of areas to preserve them. That just makes no sense. And then (as a mt biker) all the other users who claim that ONLY the mt bikers are doing trail damage. To USE a trail is to damage it. Hikers, horses, bikers...we use a trail, some damage is done. The trail's very existance is damage...the trail wasn't always there. Where (and who) gets to draw the line and make decisions on who/what is allowed? Tho I agree that there needs to be some kind of regulations. <br /><br />And Mary, I feel your pain (on the trash people leave behind). I am constantly amazed by how much trash I find lying on the trails (that I will typically stop and pick up if feasable). I like to think of myself as an ambassador to the outdoors...I'm always extremely courteous and kind to hikers and horses I meet on the trails. And I NEVER ride when it's muddy (on purpose I mean...once in a blue moon I'll go out WEEKS after a rain and there are still some muddy spots...I can't help that...but I do pick-up and carry my bike around those areas...same for all water crossings). Just trying to what I can to minimize the evidence of my passing.MattChttp://inane-asylum.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18615538.post-48473119389232004672011-01-26T10:26:14.068-07:002011-01-26T10:26:14.068-07:00Jill, I'm with you in general sentiment.
Eve...Jill, I'm with you in general sentiment. <br /><br />Even the broadest world events still need to be viewed within the context of individual lives and capabilities. That's not a capitulation or failure, that's the nature of life, and we should be proud of taking the responsibility for weighing what is important to us and acting on it, regardless of the particulars. <br /><br />For some, this may mean very little in the way of environmental action. For others, it may mean a lot.<br /><br />Yes, we value the outdoors, but we also can't just be shut-ins and abandon those we care about, or activities we love, simply because there is a side effect. Life, by its nature, has side effects.mtnrunner2https://www.blogger.com/profile/10974435572236740294noreply@blogger.com